This tragic event could be described as collateral damage of American Law and constitution. "Collateral Damage" inflicted on foreigners by the US and other military establishments is becoming more unacceptable.

Banning all private guns as the author suggests would be the best solution, but is unlikely. Taking the existing population of guns out of circulation would probably take a century, (based on experience of the aftermath of various conflicts) guns remain usable for a very long time. See the Tower of London's collection of guns whch are centuries old but still operable.

It is unrealistic to hope for the obvious needed changes to Federal Law. From my European perspective, I would suggest bans on guns with removable magazines, and a maximum capacity of 5 to 6 shots, for all but military and perhaps police. Larger magazines are not necessary for hunting, and of very limited or no use for self-defence.

It may appear flippant in a very sad context, but restrict unlimited gun ownership to women. I don't remember a report of any woman perpetrating a massacre.

There is also a potential in limiting the availability of ammunition currently at very cheap level, by adding some serious taxes. It would help reduce the deficit.

America's right to bear arms is founded on the anti-British Sentiment of British Troops forcing themselves on the lands of American Citizens and taking whatever supplies or advantage of anything and everything. Not in mind back yard or over my dead body, from my lifeless dead hands will take our guns! Fast forward nearly 250 yrs later and the weapons have become more advanced and swifter at killing.
You will not take guns away from Americans, it will not happen. More Americans now are on food stamps than ever before. The world economy is on its way to collapse, look at Greece, and revolts in other countries, Egypt, and elsewhere.
When the dollar collapses, I will probably need an arsenal for all of the gun toting criminals in America and believe me if its you VS me, Well you're are losing the battle at $100 for a loaf of bread. Inflation, food shortages, riots, it's all coming, the question is when?

Actually, the Right To Bear Arms was inherited by the Americans from the British; the first formal mention of it is in the English 1689 Bill of Rights.

Most people seem not to know this; the British don't know it because the authorities don't educate them (might give people ideas), and Americans, I suspect, just assume it came out of the War of Independence.

For those interested, I recommend the book "To Keep and Bear Arms" by Joyce Lee Malcolm.

Guns are only part of the picture. We have a video game and movie industry that glorifies violence, and we have a news media industry that brings instant international fame to the killer---even comparing body counts from the last couple incidents. Take a few seconds to view this you tube video of the medias role in creating more like incidents. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4

But haven't studies (as opposed to surmise) shown that violent tv etc. doesn't really matter? We've got the same games and movies and media in Canada. And a similar culture. But handguns are very difficult to acquire. And we have virtually no gun crime and a very low murder rate. And if tyrrany comes along, we vote them out (eventually). I think you can do that in the US, too, no?

How did America get where it is on guns? Talk about the inmates running the asylum on gun control.

I'm so tired of the gun control response.
What is more interesting to me than sheer numbers is the rate per 100,000 population (more informative as takes into account total population size). Look at this interesting table from the Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/oct/10/world-murder-rate-unodc
I also have to be honest here and say it's surely something to do with the human more than with the gun? Maybe it's because of the kind of world we have created, with so much pressure and so little space that it's amazing more people don't go loco and flip out committing atrocities. I could own twenty guns but not shoot a single person.
The shooters are just people in a very messed-up world. We're so intent on filling up our planet by over-breeding and building over anything green that we don't seem to get that the downside of this as a route is that we do ourselves in.
We need to look at what makes mass shootings seem like a way to go rather than get obsessed about the tools used. In the UK we had someone go on the rampage with a samurai sword... If the kid hadn't had guns to hand what would he have done? Who knows? Built a home made bomb? He'd still be someone who wasn't right in the head and we need to work out why so many are like this.
Treating mental health issues properly is one component but, fundamentally for me, it's why have so many of us got mental health issues? Let's, for once, look at the causes not just try to treat the symptoms. Free thinking, real thinking, not prayers and rules, are the only way we will resolve this mess.

I find that interesting that you say 50 years ago because 30 years ago my high school had 20 WWII era M1 Rifles in 30-06 used by the rifle club in the school with ammo as well as a few single shot .22 rifles and .410 shotguns. As part of 5th grade PE we learned hunters and firearms safety including how to shoot .22's and the shotguns. Kids often had rifles and shotguns in their trucks along with ammo so they could go hunting as soon as the bell rang in the afternoon. And this wasn't too uncommon either even in "city" schools. The school had guns and ammo on campus and yet there were no shootings. What changed?

Instead of single shot .22s people buy AR-15 with 30 round detachable magazines (or 100 round drum for the really sexually inadequate), take the six shooter and replace it with a 17 round detachable magazine Glock, and replace the 410 for a 12-round 12 gauge Striker Street Sweeper... you get the point.

Ideas and information moves faster now - which is good. But as a downside so do negative ideas and information.
I suppose there is a malignant idea that is impugned and awakened in some members or society - this massacre business.
Freedom of speech is one of the greatest achievements in the Western world - I do not suggest changing that in anyway. However unfortunately it is not 30 years ago and now there is a problem.

When we are ill we go to the doctor and the doctor from all the information he has available treats the condition. Well we have seen the problems - alot - the best thing the doctor can do here - and the doctor is not infallible - is try to fix or improve the situation and the answers are strict gun laws.
You should just have 5 shot riffles and shotguns for hunting - period. If you want to handle guns and such in this age - join the military - there is enough strife in the world where guns are used - why leave them available to use against thy neighbours?
p.s I too have learnt to shoot a rifle and have used it hunting. I think that is fine and it is a great skill and pastime. One thing I did learn while hunting though... I point the gun, squeeze the trigger... the animal dies - that is a crazy power for individuals to have readily available to them in society. So take it away.

This article was clearly written by somebody who doesn't understand the topic and has done no research whatever into it.

For example: if British gun laws are so effective, why is it that, as he admits, more British policemen are now armed than ever before?

The reason why UK gun crime is so low is entirely cultural. It's always been low, even when getting guns and ammunition was easy.

Economist editorial staff need to think about this. Your credibility depends on trust. If you are prepared to publish junk like this, masquerading as informed opinion, why should anybody who recognises it as junk then trust you to tell the truth on anything else?

This comment was clearly written by someone who doesn't understand reality and flees from facts whenever possible.

For example, if gun violence is cultural, then Americans are violent people and easy access to guns is an insane idea.

Alex Swanson needs to think about this (and his use of the definite article). Your credibility depends on making intelligent comments. If you are prepared to post junk like this, masquerading as informed opinion, why should anyone who recognizes it as junk then even begin to ponder your views?

My opinion on this matter is informed. I have spent years exchanging views on this with a variety of UK "gun control" supporters, including MPs, journalists, and the UK Home Office. At no point has anyone ever produced any evidence - any evidence at all, not one single fact or figure - to support the idea that UK gun laws have produced, or are ever likely to produce, any public safety benefit whatever. Nor have you done so.

It is unfortunately true that some sections of US society are more violent than their UK equivalents; I wish it were not so, but firearms laws are not the answer.

I have been reading the Economist for many years, and it is sad but true that the quality of journalism has deteriorated badly over the past few years. My point is a valid one: if the Economist can produce articles which show almost complete ignorance on a subject in which I have taken an interest over many years, and am well informed enough to have a worthwhile opinion, why I should I trust it on matters, such as global warming, on which I am happy to admit I am not?

Incidentally, if you want to know what the UK authorities themselves really think of their laws, I suggest you ponder the murder of Jill Dando, who was killed with (grammar) a 9mm handgun, after the ban.

The police investigated, then arrested a local man of lower than average intelligence, income, and social skills. He was found guilty and locked up. He was however later released after forensic "evidence" was found to be suspect.

At no point did anyone in authority ask themselves how such a man had managed to obtain an illegal firearm and ammunition. They simply took it for granted that he could. That just by itself tells you all you need to know.

Zuviele Noten! You need a lot of characters to say absolutely nothing :-) Simply compare the homicide rate, the evidence is right before your eyes. 'Course you can imagine all kinds of explanations, like cultural, differences in food or a populations average density of nostril hair, but usually the simplest is the one closest to the truth: gun availability kills.

So, 30,000 gun deaths per year in the USA compared to 50 or so in the UK doesn't represent a public safety outcome? OK, maybe not, but the 30,000 deaths represents a public danger outcome. I really don't think that 50 vs 30,000, when allowing for the difference in population, means that Americans are 250 times more inherently violent than citizens of the UK. The fact that there is, on average, 1 gun per person might have something to do with it. So, how does this NOT relate to UK gun laws?

In reply to Swanson.
Why do you need your gun?
Furthermore, this was an op ed piece - it says it up the top. So it is opinion and one that I agree with.
Most answers that have criticised this article have been very poor. I am just curious - is it a tyranny thing or your scared of something in your society?
Perhaps if you were a third world country and you didn't have the rule of law gun ownership would be a good idea. Unfortunately that is a dinosaur. Dinosaurs became obsolete and extinct. Get on with the times buddy.
Also - why can't you imagine being shot and how horrible that would be? Wouldn't less possibilities of this be a good thing?
Please don't spam me with your evidence ether - conservapedia is not evidence. I can stand on natural justice alone and refute what your saying.

For point, I have about had it with the inanely repeated mantra about how 'people kill people...not guns.' It is time to stop that garbage line.

People with guns kill people more impulsively, in rapid succession and in huge numbers when access to guns is easier and, in particular, access to automatic weapons whether they be rifles or handguns. And there is absolutely no justifiable reason...any...for civilian ownership of high powered automatic rifles and rapid loading magazines. And until such time that Bambi starts to organize combat assault teams, there is no use for automatic weapons for hunting either.

Yes, evil people have access to knives and other kinds of weapons. But knives take a while to use efficiently and the attacker becomes far more vulnerable to being attacked back and stopped.

So...those of you who smugly suggest that we will next demand the 'licensing' of butter knives should give it up and grow up. Unlike knives, guns also make killing that much more impersonal; that is, death can be handed out from a safer distance and without actually confronting or interacting with your victim.

I support the right to own a gun for both hunting and intelligent self defense. At the same time, I also believe that safe gun management and guidelines are not at all incompatible with gun ownership by reasonably sane persons.

In fact, I bet that right now gun shops are selling out of stock as more idiots run to buy as many weapons as they can afford with the thought that Newton might have...finally...tipped the scales towards more responsible and responsive gun ownership guidelines and legislation.

And when the next mass assault occurs, do not pretend to be surprised. Every single thoughtless apologist shares an indirect culpability. Yes….I meant every single one.

Social bonds evolve. Fifty years ago, many people did not enjoy the freedoms guaranteed by our constitution. People using the three branches of government set forth in that document have worked to further the principles underlying that document. We have, over time and through much courageous work, challenged ourselves to live up to those principles in an ever-changing world. Our efforts thus far to extend Enlightenment principles globally depend on our demonstrable ability to see results that empower citizens here. If we do it right, we inspire people globally to to be courageous in their efforts toward greater freedom. If we do it wrong, we inspire them to despise us for our hypocrisy.

When evaluating the "cost of freedom", I doubt people around the world will be inspired to emulate our astonishingly high, 2d amendment-enabled, weapons-manufacturer profit-making, and corporate media sponsored "if it bleeds it leads" rate of gun violence.

You no longer can challenge a government's potential tyranny militarily like in George Washington's day (blunderbuss is not going to take out 26 people that fast) unless you personally have a nuclear arsenal. Today's world requires we challenge tyranny through ideas and civic engagement. Some guns, for military, hunting and other uses, are not the issue. Three hundred million guns, sold on fear-mongering and resulting in a disastrously large number of gun deaths, compared with the rest of the "civilized world", are.

I'll be enjoying a nice Christmas dinner with my family, just like people did 50 years ago. I'll be lovingly sharing the meal with the diverse group we are: several Christians, a Hindu, a Jew, an Atheist, a Pagan and several who are too young to make the distinctions. We don't exclude the gay one or his partner. This is my family, and I love them all. We all will be lamenting this tragedy, and wondering if our children are safe.

We must answer to each other today, here and now, regardless of which God you worship, and decide if what's going on right now constitutes a "well-regulated militia". To argue for the status quo is to argue madness.

Check the homicide rates around the world. The vast majority of them are predominantly Christian, God-fearing nations. Doesn't seem like "having to answer to God" stops people from killing, eh? If you think it through a bit, murderers can conclude that because they live in a twisted world, their victims will be better off in Heaven because of their innocence.

Doesn't seem like "multicultural, atheistic" societies in Europe have quite the same problems, either. Maybe you should stop engaging in lazy thinking, move beyond scapegoating people of colour and non-believers and realize that a little empathy goes a long way.

Observing violent games and films has a very short term effect, that has been proven, but not long term.

Why not stop masking your beliefs, you want a gun to protect you from colored and liberal people. You want a gun so you'll feel safe, even if statistics (i.e. facts) show you are making your house more dangerous.

What makes me happy is in 20 years your ideas will be in the dustbin of history...

I wrote a comment earlier to which I should have added your take on the media's responsibility. If the media cannot exercise self-regulation a responsible government agency should to do it for them.

I'm tired of hearing about individual rights and states' rights as they apply to safety and basic human needs

Americans believe that their rights are being protected by the 2nd amendment when in fact they have acquiesced to living under the tyranny of a congress that is too cowardly to protect them from mass shooters.

A courageous bi partisan congress would begin by banning all automatic weapons which are unnecessary for hunting or personal security. Who needs more than a single shot weapon?

The only light at the end of the tunnel is the persuasive powers of an eloquent president who may need to shame his fellow politicians into taking action before more children and other innocents are killed.

Atheist?
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but in the vast majority of US cases, the shooters have been anything but atheist.
Nor liberal, left-leaning, or any of the other convenient labels Fox and others likes to throw around.
And multicultural? Only the victims have been multicultural, the shooters have typically been white males.

Sorry to put this like this but it is appropriate - you sound like the wife of the preacher on the Simpsons 'think of the the children'
Well yes indeed do just that. Times do change and it is not the 1950's - you have the rule of law and system of governance that is meant to allow change and development.
Do you think child pornography is a horrible thing? Yes I bloody do - guess what common sense and new laws changed that paradigm when the Internet made such sharing and possession a problem in small parts of your community. Everyone agrees that such events that happen when someone uses a gun on others is horrible - why not use the system of governance that has led you well and adopt it to change this - without bringing up statistics - less guns will mean less gun deaths. It's simple maths/logic.
Anyway let us not go into the nuances - but I will leave you with this.
The right to life overrides the right to carry the absolute power to take it away - if there is a god - I am sure that the god's heavy heart would agree. Furthermore - stop being so afraid and love thy neighbours - in the end you all live together.

The big "elephant in plain sight" entered the nation, at first pussyfooted, in 2004. 2004 was the year when the Congress, and the George W. Bush administration, let assault weapons ban expire which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1994.

Ever since 2004 we are seeing a gradual rise in mass shootings with an ever growing number of victims. All recent mass killings, without exception, were committed with such automatic assault weapons that were banned until 2004.

The following The data came from an extensive tabulation by Mark Follman at Mother Jones. Except for 1999, a year of five shootings (including the Columbine massacre), the assault ban period was peaceful by US standards:

Years......Shootings.......Per Year......People shot/year

1982-1994......19.............1.5...............25.5

1995-2004......16.............1.6...............20.9

2005-2012......27.............3.4...............54.8*

Since the expiration of the gun ban in 2004, the number of shootings per year has doubled, and the number of victims per year has nearly tripled. Three of the bloodiest four years shown here occurred since lifting the ban on assault weapons.

However, these figures don't explain sufficiently why the years before the assault-weapon-ban were not as violent as the years after the ban was lifted in 2004. Victims and shootings were not as common before 1994 as they are now. Has something new happened in the last decade?
Yes it has: it's most likely the result of the 'explosion' in assault weapon sales since 2004 (including hand guns with extra-large magazines), a period where even mothers, housewives and nurses pack semi-automatics. Only this makes these mass killings of the scale we're seeing now possible.

In other words: Acts of insane violence have always been with us, however only such advanced assault weaponry (One-Man-WMDs) creates the efficiency to allow large death tolls of a scale as seen now.

Every other western country in the world is exposed to "criminal, anti-social games" and have a lot more atheists than the U.S per head.
I do not see this elephant...
Have a look at your health system, the medication these kids are on and the automatic weapons that weren't readily available 50 years ago...
Plus you just came out victorious from ww2 so of course there was a unified culture.
Fear of God does not make you a better person...more guns given to more people = more death.
It's simple maths.

It's inevitable that weapons will not only grow more powerful, but more available via dual use technologies. Furthermore, if history have been a reliable guide, we can assume killing will only grow less 'intimate' as technology further separates us.

Given this, would it not be prudent to investigate the actual reservoirs of such anguish and pain, that inflict these miserable acts upon the rest of society? The individuals involved in these massacres have consistently shown patterns - does this not warrant more attention than the means to which they sought their ends, particularly as these means become inevitably more available and lethal?

This is one of the very, very few anti-gun articles I've read in which the author does not rely on hyperbole and vicious personal attacks to make his case. Lexington, I disagree with your views on gun ownership, but at least your argument is reasonable, cordial, well articulated and, in particular, intellectually honest.

With Mexico bordering our country, if all guns were banned here, they would flow as freely from Mexico as cocaine does now. And of course from sea illegal guns would come to all areas of the country. Us law abiding citizens would not have them, but the criminal element surely would.

The gunman's mother had all her guns registered. This is at leas what we've read.

The problem is, as I've said earlier, that in all recent cases of mass shooting assault weapons and semiautomatic handguns with extra-large magazines played a major role. Only the use of such firearms by one madman makes a mass killing of 10 … or 27 individuals possible. A renewal of the suspended Federal Assault Weapons Ban would be a first step in the right direction. This, at least, would deter mentally instable people from obtaining such weapons too easily.

The Washington Times article is outdated. It doesn't include the horrific mass murders that took place AFTER the ban was lifted. Statistics show clearly that ALL mass shootings that took place after 2004 were committed with so called 'assault weapons', which are by definition all automatic and semi-automatic rifles and semi-automatic handguns with extended magazines.

2004 was the year when the Congress, and the George W. Bush administration, let the assault weapons ban expire, a ban which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1994.

Ever since 2004 we are seeing a gradual rise in mass shootings with an ever growing number of victims. All recent mass killings, without exception, were committed with such automatic assault weapons that were banned until 2004.

The following data came from an extensive tabulation by Mark Follman at Mother Jones. Except for 1999, a year of five shootings (including the Columbine massacre), the assault ban period was peaceful by US standards:

Years......Shootings.......Per Year......People shot/year

1982-1994......19.............1.5...............25.5

1995-2004......16.............1.6...............20.9

2005-2012......27.............3.4...............54.8*

Since the expiration of the gun ban in 2004, the number of shootings per year has doubled, and the number of victims per year has nearly tripled. Three of the bloodiest four years shown here occurred since lifting the ban on assault weapons.

However, these figures don't explain sufficiently why the years before the assault-weapon-ban were not as violent as the years after the ban was lifted (after 2004). Victims and shootings were not as common before 1994 as they are now. Has something new happened in the last decade?

Yes, the statistics don't say anything about the availability of semi-automatics during the ban. Fact is, that semi-automatic weapons (*) were also used in the Columbine High School massacre.

Quote Wikipedia: “Dylan Klebold was equipped with a 9 mm Intratec TEC-9 semi-automatic handgun (*) with one 52-, one 32-, and one 28-round magazine and a 12-gauge Stevens 311D double-barreled sawed-off shotgun. Klebold was to fire primarily the TEC-9 handgun: this weapon was to be fired 55 times in total . . . At 11:19 a.m., a witness heard Eric Harris yell "Go! Go!". At that moment, the two gunmen pulled out their guns from beneath their trenchcoats and Harris immediately began shooting with his 9 mm semi-automatic carbine (*) at two 17-year-old students who had been sitting upon a grassy knoll next to the West Entrance of the school”. (Endquote)

The increase in mass-shooting AND in causalities since 2005 is provably connected to the renewed 'free availability' of assault weapons, whose sales rose by almost 400% compared to before 1994.
The 'explosion' of sales of this type of weapons is obviously the main reason for the 'explosion' of causalities as well.

We now live in an insane era where 'normal' housewives and mothers (as in the case of the Sandy Hook shooting) pack semi-automatics - easily available to their sociopathic children. Only the ease of availability makes mass shootings of the scale we're seeing now possible.

In other words: Acts of insane violence have always been with us, however only such advanced assault weaponry (One-Man-WMDs) creates the efficiency to allow large death tolls of a scale as seen now.

Of course, the law must also assure that all existing private-held automatics and semi-automatics are collected, so that at least the average American doesn't have them laying around at home.

Of course, professional criminals will always have such weapons, but they, usually, don't run around committing school-yard murder 'for fun'.

United States and India both gained freedom from British but gave birth to different constitutions. Even though British were far more genocidal in India (Victorian Holocaust, Jalianwala Bagh massacre) but Americans enshrined right to bear arms to prevent Government from being tyrannical whereas Indians made it extremely hard to own firearms.

What are you talking about? In North America the British, and their American descendents, actually committed genocide against the natives. That's why only roughly 1% of modern Americans are natives and the majority are of European descent. The Indians in India today are actually Indians because the British in India were not genocidal.

FWIW, Native Americans were committing genocide against each other long before White man arrived. Inter-tribal warfare continued after White man arrived, too. Some chose to fight on the side of White men because it was in opposition to hostile tribes. If native American tribes did not spend their time focused on their own world, or even their own selves, they might be more successful. In my neck of the "woods," the American Southwest, alcohol is one of the biggest killers of Native Americans, and many of them are happy to find ways to bilk or shake-down White man. As such, they never will get anywhere, until they go extinct.

Given you're arguments against the colonization of North America, and the subjugation of the natives, have you considered that those now inhabiting the Indus Valley possibly did the same to a group of people that preceded them? Or is this inherited ancestral sin only limited to American whites?

You seem to be ignorant of the fact that two types of European colonies existed: settler (or settler invader) colonies and colonies of occupation and exploitation (exploitation of labor and resources).

Nigeria and India are examples for "colonies of occupation and exploitation", where the indigenous people were also the majority. They were ruled and suppressed by an occupying foreign 'master' power. The extinction of the indigenous people was not an occupational goal of this form of colony, since the enslaved 'natives' were concurrently seen as 'human resources' to be 'exploited', in a very similar way as, e.g., mineral resources.

Examples of 'settler colonies' can be found in Australia, the Americas, New Zealand and Southern Rhodesia (present day Zimbabwe). Colonial rule was mainly established by the arrival of metropolitan settlers in great numbers who gradually gained control over the territory which was either largely uninhabited or by depriving the original inhabitants systematically of their means of survival via tricky negotiations or through extinction and forced displacement (i.e. into so-called 'reservations').

"But I also imagine that lots of ordinary adults, if woken in the night by an armed intruder, lack the skill to wake, find their weapon, keep hold of their weapon, use it correctly and avoid shooting the wrong person."

Let me say what you're too much of a coward to say, you "limey" Brit:

"But I also imagine that lots of ordinary adults in America are too stupid to use their own firearms."

Having cleared that out of the way, I'd like to invite the correspondent to come try and take MY firearms!

David.Wiesenthal, You may very well be a highly skilled marksman, and possess nerves of steel which allow you to remain calm and steady and quickly react to life-threatening situations. However, that combination of training, mental toughness, and courage is very rare and has little to do with intelligence. Nor is it some innate American quality the British just don’t have. I believe Lexington’s assessment of “ordinary adults” is quite correct and is in no way intended as a slight against Americans, or human beings in general. Thank You.